The World’s most costly Scientific Error
Monday, September 13, 2021
by Dr. Ed Berry
The world’s most costly scientific error is the false belief that human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2.
The truth is that nature causes most of the increase. The truth changes everything they have told you about climate change.
My new scientific paper describes this widely promoted scientific error.
The journal Atmosphere peer reviewed my scientific paper and accepted it for publication. Even if the dark side were to block this forthcoming Atmosphere publication, my scientific paper will remain a breakthrough, peer-reviewed scientific paper in climate physics.
My paper proves nature causes most of the CO2 increase and the human contribution to the CO2 increase is small.
The importance of the truth
Climate treaties are useless because we cannot stop mother nature from increasing CO2.
Arguments that we must reduce our CO2 emissions to stop climate change are now unethical, immoral, irrational, and irresponsible because, according to IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data, our CO2 does not cause climate change. Nature does.
There may be other arguments for wind energy, solar energy, electric vehicles, and energy conservation, but stopping climate change is not one of them.
And when the Associated Press or your teachers or professors tell you your CO2 causes droughts, floods, hurricanes, forest fires, and species extinction, they are lying to you.
Arguments that more CO2 is good are valid, but those arguments are outside the scope of my paper.
Who will tell you the climate truth?
Today, only a handful of scientists recognize this major IPCC scientific error.
Many scientists and media sources don’t know the truth and, if they did, they would not want you to know the truth. The dark side wants to keep you in the dark.
You see, those who support the climate error want to keep you dumbed down. Their next election depends on it. Their job depends on it. Their retirement depends on it. Their wealth depends on it. Their reputation depends on it. Their ego depends on it.
Their power to control you depends on it. Believe them and you are their puppet. Follow the truth and you will be free.
The climate fraud taught the dark side how to control you.
When they convince you to believe one science fraud, it is easier for them to make you believe their next science fraud. They learned to scare you to death with a problem and you will buy their “solution”.
The climate fraud showed government how they can make you believe anything. (9-11, COVID?)
The world’s most costly science error harms science.
Physics Today just published the article, “The US is falling behind in basic energy sciences, DOE panel finds.”
It is no wonder that America’s science is “falling behind” when America’s schools, colleges, and universities teach people to believe IPCC’s invalid climate assumption is true because you must reject basic physics to believe it.
Believe their invalid climate assumption is true and you will destroy your ability to think. It is that illogical.
There is a whole generation of kids who think they can save the world by working to reduce our CO2 emissions. Their teachers and professors have so dumbed them down that they do not understand basic physics.
The source of true science.
My paper proves what the IPCC says is “incontrovertible” truth is a scientific error.
It does not matter how many “scientists” disagree with my proof because votes do not decide climate truth.
Science progresses when people prove a theory is wrong. My paper is a checkmate proof that the UN IPCC core climate theory is wrong. Therefore, my paper contributes to scientific progress.
With their billions of dollars of government funding, IPCC scientists should have discovered their scientific error. But none of them did.
True science is not dictated by people with important positions in government, universities, professional societies, institutes, or coalitions.
True science derives from simple arguments supported by accurate mathematics. That is what my paper does.
The history of science shows a groupthink majority such as these believers will defend their belief by ignoring or attacking the messengers of the truth.
Good students can understand my paper.
You don’t need a PhD to understand my paper, but some proficiency in math and physics will help. I can teach qualified high-school students to understand my paper, and it would be a valuable science lesson for them.
The logic of my paper is simple. It has four steps:
IPCC’s human carbon cycle — the basis of all IPCC’s climate claims and climate models — contradicts IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data.
My proof of IPCC’s error is independent of outside data and is deductive. Therefore, it is a checkmate proof!
True scientists will understand this IPCC error and will tell the people the truth.
You can promote climate truth.
My scientific paper backs up the science in my book, Climate Miracle.
Climate Miracle is easy to read. It is purposely short so it will not put you to sleep. Nobody is going to read a 300-page treatise on climate.
Climate Miracle can be a homeschool textbook on how to understand science.
People are buying Climate Miracle and they like it. (These book sales support my emails to you and my work in climate physics.)
But Climate Miracle threatens the dark side, so they write ignorant zero-star reviews on Amazon that prove they do not understand science.
If you have not done so already, you can promote climate truth by writing your review of Climate Miracle on Amazon.
I will appreciate your effort very much.
Congratulations, well deserved!
Part of the problem we have in confronting the lie is that it is a deliberate lie premeditated as a control mechanism of the masses. It politicises fear and backs this with propaganda to enslave the minds of the global population. Reinforce this with indoctrination at schools and universities as you have said and you end up with a dumbed down population incapable of logical thinking on the issue.
Having said that, the only antidote to this political manipulation is truth. Throughout tie it’s been the individual who marches against the throng that has the power to undo the plotting of the corrupt and evil purveyors of untruth. You are such a person.
For this you have the respect of many. Please stick with it. You have more power than you realise.
The concept that there was scientific error is a good one since it let’s many scientists off the hook. It was a scam, and many scientists bought into it and need a face saving way out. Perhaps they went along with the scam because they are sheep it doesn’t mater. You are a genius to have figured a way out. I believe the person who started the scam was Gordon MacDonald who published a paper “JSR-78-07” Titled “The Long Term Impact Of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide On Climate”. He introduced a lot of false science that is still the basis used to support AGW. He even claimed that atmospheric CO2 could acidify and heat up the oceans. Dr. MacDonald has been dead for over 10 years so we may never know why he published junk science. But I will add that 50+ years ago scientists questioned two issues with respect to AGW. One was possible source of natural CO2 and the other was heat from the earth. For both the answer was “we looked into it and the impact would be minimal” I believe the questions were posed by shills.
Great Job. I truly appreciate your efforts to uncover this massive lie.
The atmospheric capacity of the earth is about 8.45 GtCO2/ppm. From 1960 to 2020 the CO2 atmospheric concentration went from 317 ppm to 414 ppm equaling 820 GtCO2. Divide 820 GtCO2 by 61 years equals an average of 13.4 GtCO2 per year and is a viable number for determining the average Mankind CO2 emission covering 1960-2020 inclusive.
That is fundamental material balance mathematics, therefore, how you came up with human carbon emissions causes only a 25% CO2 increase escapes me!
Currently for the last decade centered around the year 2017, Mother Nature CO2 emissions were 580 GtCO2 annually, Mother Nature CO2 adsorptions were 600 GtCO2 annually, Mankind CO2 emissions were 37 GtCO2 annually. Mankind topped up and went over the difference by 17 GtCO2 that stayed in the atmosphere and was responsible for the (2017) 17 GtCO2 / 8.45 GtCO2 / ppm equaling 2.0 ppm annual rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I like and agree with the language against IPCC, but your paper allegedly has flaws. I will read it later. What you want is my completion of the IPCC AR6 2022 report that is around one page with lots of Charts contained in one jpg file. Give me your email address and I will share that file with you.
Regards.
Dear Bryon,
First, I really should delete your comment, but I will give you one more chance to be rational.
Second, your comment belongs on my Preprint #3 post, not here.
Third, you are not even polite enough to use the same units the IPCC uses that are clearly explained in my Preprint #3. You expect readers to convert your GtCO2 in to PgC by dividing by 3.67.
Fourth, your sentence,
“Mankind topped up and went over the difference by 17 GtCO2 that stayed in the atmosphere and was responsible for the (2017) 17 GtCO2 / 8.45 GtCO2 / ppm equaling 2.0 ppm annual rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration,”
demonstrates you don’t understand the problem and you prefer to propagate climate junk science.
Fifth, you should be polite enough to read the Introduction to my Preprint #3, then you might have an idea of what you wish to discuss.
Finally, your comment is irrational because you do not consider how fast human carbon dioxide flows out of the atmosphere.
“Finally, your comment is irrational because you do not consider how fast human carbon dioxide flows out of the atmosphere”.
The question is, why would anyone that must know that if you fill up a balloon with CO₂ and tie a string to it and then drag it around before it burst, not understand that because CO₂ is 1.6 times more dense that the ‘air’ it is in that it sinks out of the atmosphere?
Authors [publication year] Residence time (years)
Based on natural carbon-14
Craig [1957] 7 +/- 3
Revelle & Suess [1957] 7
Arnold & Anderson [1957] 10
including living and dead biosphere
(Siegenthaler, 1989) 4-9
Craig [1958] 7 +/- 5
Bolin & Eriksson [1959] 5
Broecker [1963], recalc. by Broecker & Peng [1974] 8
Craig [1963] 5-15
Keeling [1973b] 7
Broecker [1974] 9.2
Oeschger et al. [1975] 6-9
Keeling [1979] 7.53
Peng et al. [1979] 7.6 (5.5-9.4)
Siegenthaler et al. [1980] 7.5
Lal & Suess [1983] 3-25
Siegenthaler [1983] 7.9-10.6
Kratz et al. [1983] 6.7
Based on Suess Effect
Ferguson [1958] 2 (1-8)
Bacastow & Keeling [1973] 6.3-7.0
https://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.htm
Byron L Trackwell says:
“The atmospheric capacity of the earth is about 8.45 GtCO2/ppm. From 1960 to 2020 the CO2 atmospheric concentration went from 317 ppm to 414 ppm equaling 820 GtCO2“.
What does the unknown atmospheric capacity of the earth have to do with basically anything and more specifically with the trace gas CO₂ that only comprises .038% of the Earth’s total atmosphere?
It is also worth your being confronted with the fact that CO₂ is 1.6 times more dense than that atmosphere; therefore, it does what anything that is heavier than what it is contained in, it sinks out of the atmosphere to ground level where the life forms that must have CO₂ to exist, plant life, are found.
All of this continual and circular argument about the level of CO₂ in the atmosphere and how it got there is meaningless when one knows that CO₂ has nothing to do with the Earth’s temperature or its climate. It is the Sun that determines all of that and not a trace gas, CO₂, that is in short supply if the Earth is to have a vibrant supply of plant life that all animal life depends on to exist.
I question if there is any greenhouse effect caused by trace gases; but that is a discussion for another time.
It is a fact that the CO₂ levels on Earth have gone up in the last few years, but the global temperature has declined over the last 30 years as this well analyzed information shows.
The Earth’s Temperature
Currently: 57.02°F/13.9°C
Deviation: -0.18°F/-0.1°C
Stations processed last hour: 64614
Last station processed: Naha, Japan
Update time: 2021-09-28 10:38:00 UTC
http://www.temperature.global/?fbclid=IwAR2mvfvcL0od4e1OnVFh3EcNVd0on-CahKapSN1S7UCs1tnU2fHejTTlePA#twitter
Average (Jan 2015-Aug 2021): -0.336°C
Source: Temperature.Global
Data: NOAA global METARs 2015-current
NDBC global buoy reports 2015-current
MADIS Mesonet Data, NOAA OMOs
Temperature.Global API
Our API is free to use, no registration is necessary.
Global Temperature – Sample Request
http://temperature.global/api.php
Sample Response
Array
(
[temp] => 57.01
[dev] => -0.19
)
Response Format
temp – The current global temperature in degrees F
dev – The current global temperature deviation from 30 year global average in degrees F
Previous Years
The recorded global temperature for previous years:
2015 average: 0.98 °F (0.54 °C) below normal
2016 average: 0.48 °F (0.27 °C) below normal
2017 average: 0.47 °F (0.26 °C) below normal
2018 average: 1.33 °F (0.74 °C) below normal
2019 average: 0.65 °F (0.36 °C) below normal
2020 average: 0.00 °F (0.00 °C) below normal
http://www.temperature.global/?fbclid=IwAR2mvfvcL0od4e1OnVFh3EcNVd0on-CahKapSN1S7UCs1tnU2fHejTTlePA#twitter
“Dear Bryon,”
It is BYRON Dr. Ed.
“First, I really should delete your comment, but I will give you one more chance to be rational.”
My Reply:
That is not a specific scientific counter, so no reply seems a rational response.
“Second, your comment belongs on my Preprint #3 post, not here.”
My Reply:
So put it there if you wish. I did not know that it belonged with Preprint #3.
“Third, you are not even polite enough to use the same units the IPCC uses that are clearly explained in my Preprint #3. You expect readers to convert your GtCO2 in to PgC by dividing by 3.67.”
My Reply:
IPCC uses the GtCO2 unit all the time, my reply using the unit GtCO2 was appropriate just for disputing your claim that human carbon emissions caused only a 25% CO2 rise. Circumstantially, or a better word, mathematically, human carbon emissions caused 100% of the CO2 atmospheric concentration rise.
“Fourth, your sentence, Mankind topped up and went over the difference by 17 GtCO2 that stayed in the atmosphere and was responsible for the (2017) 17 GtCO2 / 8.45 GtCO2 / ppm equaling 2.0 ppm annual rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration, demonstrates you don’t understand the problem and you prefer to propagate climate junk science.”
My Reply
Junk science is a vague term, be specific with science when such accusations are made. My reply can only counter with a vague counter that follows with a specific counter. You are wrong, it is NOT junk science as it is based on the earth’s CO2 material balance.
“Fifth, you should be polite enough to read the Introduction to my Preprint #3, then you might have an idea of what you wish to discuss. Finally, your comment is irrational because you do not consider how fast human carbon dioxide flows out of the atmosphere.”
My Reply
My original comment is backed by an easy-to-understand CO2 material balance on the earth’s atmosphere. For the 2010-2020 decade centered on the year 2017, mankind CO2 emissions were 37 GtCO2. ‘THE HUMAN CARBON DIOXIDE THAT FLOWED OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE’ into the oceans & mostly into the vegetation by photosynthesis was 20 GtCO2, 17 GtCO2 remained in the earth’s atmosphere that accounted for the annual CO2 2.0 ppm rise. Thank you for posting my comment(s).
To Mr. Swallow:
It does not matter what molecular weight a gas molecule has, especially CO2 at a low concentration of about 414 ppm. Gas molecules are bouncing around at enormous speeds thus they bounce around all over the earth maintaining their yearly mean concentrations everywhere. Knowing the ideal gas law provides this explanation.
Byron L Trackwell says: “It does not matter what molecular weight a gas molecule has, especially CO2 at a low concentration of about 414 ppm”. Byron L Trackwell will not be able to explain to the over 1,700 people that the CO₂ eruption at Lake Nyos asphyxiated because CO₂, unknown to Byron L Trackwell, being 1.6 times more dense, or if you prefer, heavier, than the rest of the atmosphere, SANK to ground level. It is hard to tell what else is bouncing around in Byron L Trackwell’s mind that is false and irrelevant to the properties of CO₂.
August 21, 1986: The Lake Nyos catastrophe
The 21. August 1986 was market day in the village of Lower Nyos (Cameroon), from the surrounding mountains many herdsmen brought their livestock to do business with the local farmers. In the evening, at 21.30 p.m. most of the peasants and their guests were sleeping and didn’t notice the sound of an explosion coming from Lake Nyos, two kilometres distant to the village.
The few survivors report that their family members were eating, in the very next moment suddenly tumbled on the floor, death. A woman awaking the next morning found their five children dead in their hut. In Nyos that evening 1.700 people died. Rescue troops that arrived in the valley some days later reported of a sinisterly scene, villages with huts and gardens untouched, but everywhere bodies of humans and animals, there weren’t even insects on the corpses. The unseen killer was a 50m high cloud composed of 1,6 million tons of carbon dioxide, erupted from Lake Nyos and denser then the surrounding air following the valley for 27 kilometres, killing more than 1.700 people and 3.000 animals.
http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.com/2010/08/august-121986-lake-nyos-catastrophe.html
In April of 2016 we spent two weeks in Japan. We flew into Narita, the Tokyo airport, and flew out of Sapporo’s airport, The New Chitose Airport, that is about thirty miles from the city. We spent an enjoyable day in Fukashema and went to where when the trees are in bloom it is a site that draws many people to see them. We were a little bit early due to unusually cool weather in Japan.
This, among many other “facts”, is why I’m a skeptic and very proud to be among their ranks. The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) must have foreseen Global Warmest. He said: “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” I’m not sure that “skeptics” are in the minority, but you get my point.
There are some obsessed with the supposed increase of 338 ppm to 417 ppm of CO₂ and I hope that this information will help the alarmist to sleep better at nights.
A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large
kitchen sink.
A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There
are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons
per gallon.
Some other things that are one part per million are…
One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
One inch in 16 miles
About one minute in two years
One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from Cleveland to San Francisco.
One penny in $10,000.
I know that you understand that these 79 additional ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn’t it be a task to be told to sort out the 417 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
At 410 parts per million CO₂ is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO₂ impoverished.
Let’s picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO₂ compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO₂ would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPlbM0ymXrTxsdJHn-InTEo1B-u6XpVPa5JINyORgc-EHR5VcOpVw9kH_uVNmdEtw?key=V0tVeG5EVEZCZnZMUWJUQUNTUWpMdmFzUWpKLURn
John,
The “alarmist” isn’t alarmed because he believes the science. The “alarmist” is scared because he is a leftist propagandist who wants the agenda advanced. He will use any means, especially fear, to advance his agenda.
Dr. Ed
There is a new paper on carbon budget out you might be interested in: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.571720/full
It follows the IPCC error of assuming the oceans get most of our emissions and the rest stays in the atmosphere. It is cited a Climate Etc.
Dear DMA,
Thank you for your notice about the new paper. I just read it to follow its logic.
The paper assumes human CO2 has caused all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm. This is the assumption that my paper proves is invalid. Therefore, its conclusions are wrong because it rejects the idea that nature adds carbon to the surface ocean and nature, not human carbon, drives the increase of CO2 in the ocean.
Furthermore, the linked paper is not even sophisticated enough to realize they should calculate the human and natural carbon cycles independently. So, in my view, the linked paper is old, out-of-date science.
My paper, which is a much-improved version of my Preprint #3, shows why this new paper is wrong. Publication of my paper is imminent, and I will announce it when it occurs.
Dear Dr. Berry,
Thank you for the information on your website, and congratulations on your recent paper. I have learned a lot from your posts, although I must admit that I am a beginner and much of it is still difficult for me. I have also been trying to learn more about radiation. I came across the webpage of Dr. Charles Anderson and found this page:
objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2017/11/solving-parallel-plane-black-body.html
He came up with the following formula for the electromagnetic energy radiated from a hot plate to a cold plate:
PHI = (σ/a) Δe = εH σ TH^4 – εC σ TC^4
he also says that the radiation from the cold to the hot plate is zero.
However, this is different from other formulas for this problem that I have found in textbooks:
σ (TH^4 – TC^4)/(1/εH + 1/εC – 1).
Would you mind helping me understand which one of these formulas is correct? I get some numbers that don’t makes sense to me for some problems I am looking into.
Thanks,
Alex
Dear Alex,
Thank you for your question but it is outside of my present focus on climate, and it opens a very large topic for discussion that I do not have time for at present.
There are two core subjects in climate change: (1) how much do human carbon emissions add to the CO2 level, and (2) how much does added CO2 increase surface temperature?
Both are very big subjects. I chose to focus on (1). Someday, I might finish my work on (1) and then I can focus on (2). But I am not done yet.
No MD tries to be both a brain surgeon and a heart surgeon. Similarly, I also must specialize and focus on only one major topic at a time.
Thanks again, Ed
Thanks for the response Dr. Berry. I thought that this might be a pretty simple question for a physicist. Maybe you can just confirm what I think is wrong in Anderson’s equation.
PHI = (σ/a) Δe = εH σ TH^4 – εC σ TC^4 (he also says that PCI = 0, the radiation from the cold to the hot plate)
If I take the two temperatures to be equal, then shouldn’t it be the case that there is no net radiation transfer between the plates?
However, Anderson’s equation gives PHI = σ T^4 (εH – εC), which is not zero when εH and εC are not equal. The heat transfer should be zero when the temperatures are equal, correct? The other equation from the textbooks gives zero, so I suspect those are correct.
Maybe someone else will come across this and offer a response. Thanks again.
Dear Alex,
You ask if the net heat transfer is zero when the temperatures are equal.
That is a question that does not force me to read Anderson’s paper and follow all the symbols in your equation.
Yes, if there are only two radiating objects in a system and all points in each object are at the same temperature, then their radiation from one to the other will be equal when their temperatures are equal.
When their temperatures are equal, the system will be at its maximum entropy and cannot do work. So, it is impossible for either object to raise the temperature of the other object.
Dr. Ed, I appreciate your continuing work on this issue, and am pleased to see your paper accepted at the journal Atmosphere. I want to post on this at my blog, but do not understand two references in the preprint regarding figures 12 and 13.
On pg. 24, it says:
“Figure 12 shows in 2010, 16% of human carbon is in the atmosphere, 44% is in the land, and 32% is in the deep ocean.” I see the 16% but not the 44% or the 32%. What am I missing?
On pg. 25, it says:
“Figure 13 for 2020 shows even though the amount of new carbon has increased from 354 PgC in 2010 to 452 PgC in 2020, the percentage of human carbon in the atmosphere has decreased while the percentage in the deep ocean has increased.” I see that the 2020 deep ocean % is lower, not higher than 2010. Is this reference in error, or am I missing something?
Thanks is advance for addressing my questions
Ron Clutz @ Science Matters
Dear Ron,
Thank you very much for your comment because you uncovered an error I made in my text when I changed my Figures 12 and 13 from using Table 2 to Table 4.
The numbers in Figures 12 and 13 are good but I will change my text to read as follows:
Figures 12, 13, and 14 show the calculated level percentages for human carbon in Table 4 for the years 2010, 2020, and 2100, respectively.
Figure 12 shows in 2010, 16% of human carbon is in the atmosphere, 38% is in the land, and 37% is in the deep ocean. The percentages are significantly different than IPCC’s (2013) human carbon cycle shown in Figure 5.
Figure 13 for 2020 shows the percentage of human carbon in the atmosphere deep ocean have decreased while the percentage in the land has increased, while the total carbon has increased from 354 PgC in 2010 to 452 PgC in 2020. The 33 ppmv of human carbon in the atmosphere means nature added about 100 ppmv to the 280 ppmv in 1750 to get 413 ppmv.
I owe you one. – Ed
Thanks for clarifying. I had calculated the %s from table 4 and confirmed that the two figures were correct. So your rewording the text removes the confusion I had. I will continue to work on this, and look forward to seeing the publication.
Regards, Ron Clutz
Dr. Ed, One other confusion for me related to figures 10, 11 and 12. It arose because the label in the chart referring to the black line gives the 594 PgC number, and yet the vertical axis shows the line well below that value. Upon reading more carefully, I found your simplified chart on the You are not causing global warming post:
https://3hiom42n963515yyhx20nk0l-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/4-4-1-600×394.jpg
There it is more obvious that the lines represent added CO2 surplus to 280 ppm (or 594 PgC). And there is also a sentence explaining more clearly the dotted purple line for added human CO2:
“Don’t worry that the sum of human CO2 becomes greater after 1960 because the sum is not a valid argument anyway. It omits the flow of human CO2 out of the atmosphere.”
That helped me realize the distinction between the math sum of all the annual human emissions estimates (inputs) and the values for human CO2 retained in the atmosphere.
The chart is fine, but that label is misleading at first reading.
Just some feedback from an interested reader.
Regards, Ron
Dear Ron,
Thank you again. In response to your comment, I added the following three paragraphs to the section that discusses Figures 10, 11, and 12:
“Both natural and human carbon contribute to the measured carbon level, but the IPCC assumes human carbon caused all or most CO2 increase above 280 ppmv. However, cumulative human carbon is greater than measured total carbon only after about 1955. Before 1955, it looks like natural carbon may have caused part of the increase.
“Furthermore, the argument – that because cumulative human carbon exceeds the measured carbon level proves human carbon caused all the increase – is not valid because cumulative natural carbon is much greater than cumulative human carbon, and if natural carbon did not flow rapidly out of the atmosphere the measured carbon level would be much greater than the measured carbon level today. So, that argument omits proper account of the flow of human carbon out of the atmosphere.
“Another invalid argument used to support the IPCC basic assumption is because nature absorbs human carbon from the atmosphere, therefore nature cannot add carbon to the atmosphere. This argument neglects the physics model superposition principle that explains why the natural carbon cycle is independent of the human carbon cycle.”
(I entered these paragraphs in my final manuscript that will soon be published. I have not yet updated the PDF in the top of this post.)
Dr. Ed, here is my post today to call attention and interest in your paper in advance of its publication. I hope it proves satisfactory to you.
https://rclutz.com/2021/11/06/ipcc-data-rising-co2-is-75-natural/
Regards, Ron
Dear Ron,
Your post is fantastic.
Thank you very much.
Ed
Well done Ron and many thanks for this contribution to climate sanity. One can only hope it is read and heard widely.
Dear Ed
I would like to add your CO2 chart to my “The World of CO2” charts that I created. I created these charts for educational purposes on the basics of CO2. That’s to say for people who want to learn some basics about how important CO2 is for our planet.
Ron Cultz has reposted my charts a couple of times as I’ve updated them with new information on CO2.
Thanks for your feedback V.R.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––
https://www.ric-communications.ch/projekte/simple-science-1
The world of CO2
Infographics can be helpful, in making things simple to understand. CO2 is a complex topic with a lot of information and statistics. These simple step by step charts should help to give you an idea of CO2’s importance. Without CO2, plants wouldn’t be able to live on this planet. Just remember, that if CO2 falls below 150 ppm, all plant life would cease to exist.
– N° 1 Earth’s atmospheric composition
– N° 2 Natural sources of CO2 emissions
– N° 3 Global anthropogenic CO2 emissions
– N° 4 CO2 – Carbon dioxide molecule
– N° 5 The global carbon cycle
– N° 6 Carbon and plant respiration
– N° 7 Plant categories and abundance (C3, C4 & CAM Plants)
– N° 8 Photosynthesis, the C3 vs C4 gap
– N° 9 Plant respiration and CO2
– N° 10 The logarithmic temperature rise of higher CO2 levels.
– N° 11 Earth’s atmospheric composition in relationship to CO2
– N° 12 Human respiration and CO2 concentrations.
– N° 13 600 million years of temperature change and atmospheric CO2
– N° 14 The composition of the human body
test
test
test